From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 9 6:47:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F2737B404 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail12.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ED443E3B for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 27637 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 13:47:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Oct 2002 13:47:07 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g99Dl2n5010684; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:47:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20021009162539.B4060-100000@gamplex.bde.org> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Bruce Evans Subject: Re: i386 tinderbox failure Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , current@FreeBSD.ORG, Alexander Kabaev , obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 09-Oct-2002 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> "David O'Brien" wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 03:55:36PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> > > Could you please just commit this on the vendor branch if it is the >> > > ... >> > Doing this screws up diffs to vendor source as there won't be a tag that >> > corisponds with this across all files. For small contribed things that >> > is OK. But when doing large ones it the following import+merge becomes >> > harder. >> >> While that is true, it usually isn't all that big a deal if you are careful >> and keep track of what you've done. It is certainly better than causing >> the file to leave the vendor branch for something you *know* is now in the >> vendor tree. And I think its better than leaving a known 'compiler crash' >> case there to bite developers. > > It doesn't bite me. What am I doing wrong? :-) I just turned of the > -mcpu=pentiumpro pessimization before it affected anything. It doesn't bite me either on any of my test machines. It has to do with what config options are in your kernel config file apparently as the bug is a buffer overflow or some such. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message